slamms Posted August 27, 2012 Author Posted August 27, 2012 If i right understand that SSC spectrum not available in BIOS. And change it may only with special NDA software, right? If yes, explain me why need use it?
slamms Posted August 27, 2012 Author Posted August 27, 2012 HKEPC can change BCLK on Gigabyte with NDA software, but i found another fantastic thing. Also i am benching 5 years, but never seen 2 sec in Super Pi 32M. Massman, can you repeat?
Massman Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 So now I have to provide procedures for ALL bugs? We all know SuperPI can bug out sometimes. I've seen that kind of behavior here, on my own system, before (not in 1st loop, but during 32M); there's also the bug where 32M uses 25 loops instead of 24.
slamms Posted August 27, 2012 Author Posted August 27, 2012 So now I have to provide procedures for ALL bugs? We all know SuperPI can bug out sometimes. I've seen that kind of behavior here, on my own system, before (not in 1st loop, but during 32M); there's also the bug where 32M uses 25 loops instead of 24. i give you right Super Pi version What about HW sharing? You really think that it was different setup`s? And who received this DRAM freq? You or HiCookie?
Crew Turrican Posted August 27, 2012 Crew Posted August 27, 2012 i had those bugs which massman mentioned on various older plattforms as well (socket 478).
rbuass Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 Easy and clear... This work for us: To sum up: - one desk - two OC systems with components they used for the scores - 5500 3930K - 1200C9 memory - 7970 lightning 1650/1860 (+/_ 25mhz range) - same SSDs Validation process: - start livestream with both systems mounted, but not turned on - first bootup at superzero temperatures to show active systems - prepare systems to bench (drop temperatures etc) - start run 5500/1200/1650/1860 (+/_ 25mhz range) simultaneously when finished: - make screenshot - save validation file - upload validation file instantly - zoom in on screen to show score Note: - screenshot must contain notepad with nickname, gpuz, cpuz cpu/mb/mem, 3dmark11 score (like MOA submission) - user must move 3dmark11 window to show it's active - the idea is that both participants get a similar score as they got in the competition on two separate systems, each doing their own overclocking and run simultaneously. So...adjust parameters to MAD222 and John Lam Play in GB boards... And reach scores good enough to prove there are 2 systems that can play simultaneous... For us, the moral and the ethic required to play to times... For us, they tell about to be 99,99% obvious (is what all complainers told about me and gnidaol).... and was needed to prove... And now??? how much percent obvious??? In my point of view, is not hard to HK guys play in a Live and show is possible...then...clear for all. You did not see I tell thet are guilty, because they have 0,01% ... but when lots of guys accuse me and Iuri, it was required. Sorry again the bad english
Massman Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 And who received this DRAM freq? You or HiCookie? Of course, I did. Here, I did it again with a wallpaper just for you! Actually, you can easily do this yourself too. Just flash F2 BIOS (has SSC of 0,50%) and you don't need any secret tool as GTL setting of 109.94 will give 109.7MHz in CPU-Z with 1206.8MHz memory frequency. What about HW sharing? You really think that it was different setup`s? Ah, finally we can go to the real topic: HW/result sharing. We are currently discussing this internally and still checking with John Lam and the team captain. We want to hear all the opinion of the involved parties, not just those of the accusers.
slamms Posted August 27, 2012 Author Posted August 27, 2012 Who benched on old BIOS? Now i see that they found decision for this clock/dram, but i think it doesn`t for really. I am sure that it was sharing. Thank you all guys who support me.
knopflerbruce Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 If this is the same situation as with Ronaldo, why not just ask for the exact same proof? Then there is no doubt about any double standard at all. I also believe that we didn't ask anyone to repeat the exact results back then, just something fairly close to it - not sure if "how close" was properly defined, but 150-200MHz less should be OK. Thats roughly equal to 50MHz core on a GPU, which I think would've been judged as enough proof back then. The bclk case has been dealt with. I don't see the real need to do it, but it's ceratinly doable. Is it against the rules to say you are using a component you weren't? Stating it was a Gigabyte board, whilst using Asus, to impress Gigabyte...... Dumb, yea. Are there still strong suspicions of hardware/score sharing as well? This can't be disallowed, people flash their GPUs all the time... same thing (except they don't use it for marketing purposes, but that's another story).
Christian Ney Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 Let's be up for a livestream with them, will it solve the problem ? If yes then I will organize one.
Crew Vivi Posted August 27, 2012 Crew Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) remember ronaldo and gniadol's situation was MSI's suggestion, and it was a bit extreme to re-bench on live stream. in my opinion if this was me and drweez, and we both had awesome 6.9 cpu's, we would make sure the users of HWbot know we both have nice cpu's. Not give you all the benefit of the doubt. also would use different mobos memory specially OS etc. i still beleive they have many 6.9 cpu's though lol Edited August 27, 2012 by Vivi
Massman Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 Who benched on old BIOS? Now i see that they found decision for this clock/dram, but i think it doesn`t for really. Hey! No one is stopping you from testing all the beta BIOSes out there! Maybe you can find a recent one that has different SSC (some beta that solves a related issue) and help everyone achieve 1206.8MHz memory frequency! But I know why you are insisting on this. It's because all of Mad222's results are on a M5G and the CPU-Z mainboard tab has been left out of every single screenshot of the (alleged) shared results apart from the most recent 32M. That frequency not being possible would fit so nicely, wouldn't it? If this is the same situation ... but it's not ... (except they don't use it for marketing purposes, but that's another story). Well, where the marketing value exactly? IF this was done for marketing, then the message that they're sending out is essentially that the M5G beats the UD3H in every tested benchmark. Not much for PR, is it? Also, I haven't seen any PR or marketing messages linking to any of these results with JL's UD3H. The two results mentioned in the opening post were used for marketing, I think, but sharing these has real effect aside from having 2x UD7 in top-10 or so. But that message hasn't been spread through any PR either.
knopflerbruce Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 Hey! No one is stopping you from testing all the beta BIOSes out there! Maybe you can find a recent one that has different SSC (some beta that solves a related issue) and help everyone achieve 1206.8MHz memory frequency! But I know why you are insisting on this. It's because all of Mad222's results are on a M5G and the CPU-Z mainboard tab has been left out of every single screenshot of the (alleged) shared results apart from the most recent 32M. That frequency not being possible would fit so nicely, wouldn't it? ... but it's not ... Well, where the marketing value exactly? IF this was done for marketing, then the message that they're sending out is essentially that the M5G beats the UD3H in every tested benchmark. Not much for PR, is it? Also, I haven't seen any PR or marketing messages linking to any of these results with JL's UD3H. The two results mentioned in the opening post were used for marketing, I think, but sharing these has real effect aside from having 2x UD7 in top-10 or so. But that message hasn't been spread through any PR either. OK, but bottom line: we can't disallow people to change the mobo brand. That's what I was trying to say, just pointed out a difference. We need to look at this as if they have to prove they have a pair of CPUs that can run frequencies not too far from the ones in the screenshot. Perhaps we already know that they have the hardware needed (7GHz chips), but still... no Livestream session can prove that they didn't share results back then - in fact the case is then that we don't have good enough proof (similar screenshots alone haven't been enough for a long time - despite that some people think otherwise), and there's also no way for the accused to prove themselves innocent.
slamms Posted August 27, 2012 Author Posted August 27, 2012 Massman, i think that i showed enough information about HKEPC sharing. If HWBot dont seen that the Earth is round and HKEPC shared results, i not will lose my time more. My mission is complete and many many overclockers know about HKEPC sharing and know that HWBot allowed it. Thanks a lot.
Massman Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 Oh? Can you please point me to the message where HWBOT rules that "there is no sharing" or "that it is allowed"? I would really like to see that one too; should be an interesting read! And, ehrm, ... earth isn't round. No offense intended, just trying to separate facts from opinion here
slamms Posted August 27, 2012 Author Posted August 27, 2012 Oh? Can you please point me to the message where HWBOT rules that "there is no sharing" or "that it is allowed"? I would really like to see that one too; should be an interesting read! And, ehrm, ... earth isn't round. No offense intended, just trying to keep facts from opinion here Earth is round it`s russian aphorism, explain you personally in next time. It`s dont understant without alcohol About sharing: will wait.
dernettemann Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 If I and a 2. bencher of my team post 2 score like this, the scores were 100% blocked, an we both are banned for 1 year. Because two normal ocer can never have 2 6,85ghz+ cpus. but thats bullshit. If the scores are not blocked, could never blocked a scores at HWBOT terms hw sharring again.
knopflerbruce Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 So, find a case where you have similar screenshots and people got banned for that alone - after rev 4 was introduced (sharing punishment got changed at that point, too)
der8auer Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 So, find a case where you have similar screenshots and people got banned for that alone - after rev 4 was introduced (sharing punishment got changed at that point, too) ^^^^^^exactly that's the point. Calm down guys and wait a little bit We'll let you know as soon as there is something new.
der8auer Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 Well we won't start banning members straight just because some others ask for it - where would we end up with this? Also in the past HWBot never just banned people straight without any discussion. There are always internal discussions about how to react and of course the affected members have the chance to show their point of view. So please be patient until everything is investigated and we decided what to do. You'll hopefully understand that we can't do this within one day. But for sure we won't ignore this!
rbuass Posted August 27, 2012 Posted August 27, 2012 I am sure Hwbot will not ignore... Only with exemplary punishment can moralize .... obviously if applicable punishment
El Gappo Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 I thought they had 5 7ghz chips anyway? What would a livestream achieve?
Massman Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 haha so "us" fighters from rev1 have not been enough to get over this? Time to leave...or finally start some new project like ripping.org...I get really tired as much as slamms about that.. It's very normal that rules/punishment evolve along with the system they active in. Hardware sharing had a much greater effect in all HWBOT revisions before rev4, so it's logical that the punishment was far greater back then too. Nowadays, the practical effect it has on other users/teams is far less, but of course it still is very annoying to see. HW/result sharing is an inherent problem to any system that gives reward based on benchmark result, by the way. It's not a problem exclusively to HWBOT, but to a type of system. Just think about the LOC 2010 incident: in an OC competition outside HWBOT and without anything like points, there was still result sharing between participants to win something. And, yes, there's definitely ways to improve the situation so hw/result sharing is even less of a problem (eg: get rid of user leagues, user league based on TPP, etc), but it doesn't mean it's going to be better. So far, the 'best' system I've seen that removes the benefits of hw/result sharing are all the team-based competitions (like Country Cup, Team Cup, ...) we've organised here at HWBOT. Anyway, good luck with the new project!
knopflerbruce Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 I am sure Hwbot will not ignore... Only with exemplary punishment can moralize .... obviously if applicable punishment We're still working on it, if we find solid proof punishment will be given. We've found truth in weird excuses before, like stolen USB sticks and god knows what... we'll see what happens when we've got all the facts straight:)
Recommended Posts